Talk:Amanda Filipacchi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Is Filipacchi's article in the Atlantic an opinion piece or not?

It seems to me that it is not. It is an analysis of edits moving women out of the American novelists category and into to the American women novelists category. It lists fact after fact after fact. Actually I don't see any statements of opinion in the article. It looks like straight reporting to me. Thus I propose that we continue to refer to it as an article. Note that "article" is the more neutral term, also. All op-eds are articles but not all articles are op-eds. Thus if there's serious difference opinion here about whether she wrote an opinion piece there, the term "article" will cover all possibilities. Thoughts? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is opinion. It may the correct opinion for all that I know. But that is besides the point. An author is not inherently a journalist, nor do we have any indication that her article underwent any of the standard examination protocols by the Atlantic editorial staff that their feature writers routinely receive. I suggest you ask over at RSN, as they might be able to enlighten us.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would I want to take it to a noticeboard when there's been no attempt at conversation here first. You assert that it's opinion. I gave a reason for thinking it's not. Do you have a response to my substantive argument or are you just going to continue that assert that you're right without giving reasons? What statement of opinion is there in the article? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

IMHO it is full of opinion - like this one "Since my original article appeared, certain Wikipedia editors have successfully distracted people from this larger debate by pushing the false idea of a "single rogue editor," and creating the impression—now being widely repeated and reported—this is some small, isolated problem." - as if there's some conspiracy, and some wikipedia editors are trying to blame the whole thing on JPL - where several editors have been actively beating the drum saying the problem is not solved, and it wasn't just JPL who was doing it, etc. That sentence is the purest of supposition.

She also says "Who knows how many more years this would have continued if it hadn't been for his energetic work of accidentally exposing the sexist category rules that had already been implemented and followed by many others?" - again, this is not only opinion, but false opinion. There have been many many discussions over the years around getting gendered categories right, so to label that all "sexist category rules" is, in frank terms, bull****. The rules themselves, as has been noted many times, state that such cats should be non-diffusing, so editors weren't following the rules. She probably never bothered to actually look at the category guidance on this issue.

Finally, the article itself is titled "Sexism on Wikipedia Is Not the Work of 'a Single Misguided Editor'" - that is opinion if I've ever heard it. Do you really think people diffusing to a more specific category - perhaps in ignorance of the guidance around non-diffusing categories - were always acting, consciously or unconsciously, in a sexist manner (sexism: "prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex")? To make a charge of sexism stick, you'd have to prove that making someone a "woman writer from Alabama" instead of a "writer from Alabama" is prejudicial - especially if that person wouldn't know a non-diffusing cat from a hole in the wall.

The final piece of my argument concerns the scope of this, and previous, articles. Everything is laid out as if sexism was caught red-handed for the first time, and she exposed it, nipping the problem in the bud, and now wikipedia will fix it. Nothing could be further from the truth. She happened to spot something that was happening in a tree of personal interest to her, but she never has reported on how long this has been going on, how many other trees it's extant in, what is the broader extent of ghettoization, how were the rules around gendered categories created, how extensive is the Category:Women writers tree, etc etc - in other words, work a real journalist and investigative reporter would have gone after - what is the bigger story. This final article didn't push any deeper - it just stayed with a few women novelists, ignoring ghettoization that happened (and persists) in 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, and so on.

Anyway, I don't want to debate every point, but my point is, this piece was a personal reflection, not a purely neutral, factual reporting, and would fail the standards of objective journalism for anyone who actually knows wikipedia. The previous pieces for NY times were op-eds, but whether it's called an op-ed or article I really don't care that much - just suggest you talk it out here and stop snippy reverts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"It is an analysis of edits..."

Agreed. It's Filipacchi's analysis - in other words, it's her opinion.Federales (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That argument is a complete non-starter. If you're going to say that if a source is X's analysis then the source is X's opinion you won't have a single reliable source left. Historians analyse things and publish their analyses, scientists do, all non-fiction writers do. Your argument contradicts the possibility of reliable sources at all. So far we have the following counterarguments to my position:

• LGR says it's opinion. Will not explain why and issues vague threats in edit summaries and on my talk page.
• Obiwankenobi doesn't like what it says and gives some potentially legitimate examples of statements of opinion (although IMO doesn't distinguish between facts he doesn't like and opinions) but fails to care whether the word op-ed or article is used.
• Federales thinks that if it's Filipacci's analysis then it's Filipacchi's opinion, showing that he doesn't know the meaning of the word analysis but providing no substantive arguments. Also reverts even though discussion is ongoing as part of WP:BRD.

This does not in fact add up to consensus to call the piece an op-ed and the reversion to that term was sketchy. Are there any actual substantive responses to the issue forthcoming (besides Obiwan, who I'll answer soonish)? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"distinguish between facts he doesn't like and opinions" - I point you simply to the devil's dictionary, namely the 1906 dusty, dog-eared first-edition signed-by-the-author edition sitting on my desk: "Opinion: A fact that you don't like or disagree with." :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

True dat. Thanks for actually discussing the issue, anyway. The Devil's Dictionary is a classic. My favorite is "War: God's way of teaching Americans geography." Real response to follow... — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you people not get the memo? How do you think this amount of discussion over one word in a rather unimportant Wikipedia article looks to the real world? Do you think an argument over whether to call Filipacchi's article an "article" or "op-ed" is going to look reasonable, or like WP editors are still treating Filipacchi like an enemy of the wiki-state? Or do you just want to see your usernames in print in the next piece that covers this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is some fallout from another article where the same editor is being simliarly disruptive.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think this sort of discussion is rather WP:DEFINING for wikipedia editors in general. We (at least some of us) love to obsess over trivial details, and will fight for years over a single hyphen. There are pages devoted to cataloguing this stuff Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/Spelling_and_punctuation, Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars#Punctuation. this is my favorite: "Berwick-upon-Tweed A slow-moving edit war that centred over the use of ... an exclamation mark. As User:C12H22O11 exclaimed on the talkpage talk page, "Come on guys, you can't actually be having an edit war over one tiny exclamation point!"" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think the word you are looking for is "commentary". Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

While I've said I don't really care, I must say I do like that word here. (!voting)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And... somebody just put her in the category "American women journalists"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wow. This is a really great idea. Given the other categories Filipacchi's in, perhaps we should be more rigorous there as well. Why isn't she in "Living women people"? "1967 women births"? "Women critics of Wikipedia"? Should be fun. Go nuts. NaymanNoland (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• My reversion has been reverted back. I'm not going to touch it - life's too short for this editing war. Somebody else might wish to address this, however. (There are editors here with lots of useful experience dealing with Johnpacklambert's categorization hobby.) NaymanNoland (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Women journalist?

We have Filipacchi in Category:American columnists which is a sub-cat of Category:American journalists. Whatever one thinks of the merit of her work (and some people evidently do not think much of her works merit, but that is not at issue here), she has clearly had columns published and fits the definition of journalist we use. She is also clearly in a non-gender specific sub-cat of Category:American journalists. So I then put her in Category:American women journalists. This is in part to prevent people from making the patently false (but currently demonstarable by selective sitation of categories) claim that "Wikipedia has more articles on female pornographic film actors than on women journalists, this is discoraging to young women who wish to persue respectable careers." A similar claim and set of implications has been made by some editors of wikiped and even by some in the media in relation to women poets and female pornographic film actors. We is clear is that at present Category:American women journalists is less than half the size of Category:American female pornographic film actors. We probably do have more articles on women journalists, they are just not heavily categorized as such. I am not sure how anyone would disagree with my placing this article in Category:American women journalists (if I tried to put it in Category:American newspaper reporters and correspondents, I would see the objection, but no one has objected that Filipacchi is not a columnist, and since columnists are a sub-cat of journalists, she is a journalist, a women, in a gender-neutral sub-cat, so we can put her in the gender specific category as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the dual categorization (e.g. as columnist and women journalist) is correct and in line with our guidance - in theory. However, the question is whether her being a columnist is itself "defining". Can we find any sources that call her anything other than a novelist? If so, then it's ok - otherwise we should revert. Someone added her as an essayist recently, but I removed those for the same reason - she's not yet been called that, at least I haven't seen the sources. And columnist to me doesn't seem right in general - as a columnist you would expect is someone who has a regular column. Does she have one? Otherwise, if we can't find sources that call her some sort of journalist, these cats should be removed. I personally think a few columns does not a columnist, nor a journalist, make. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think she qualifies as a "columnist." But what about "Women critics of Wikipedia"? She's clearly a critic of Wikipedia, and she's a woman, right? Too small a category? How about "Postmodern women writers"? Lots of those. And I think it's disgraceful that we don't have a category for "1967 women births". NaymanNoland (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested that I recently nominated Category:Modernist women writers for deletion, on the grounds that it was a ghettoizing intersection - said deletion is now being disputed by one of the ppl who deal with cats a lot. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or what. The fact is, gendered cats sometimes exist, and if they do exist, I think ppl should be put in them - either that, or the cat should be deleted. So Category:Postmodern women writers, it's quite possible someone may create that some day, and she should go within if we have sources calling her "postmodern" (she should remain in the non-gendered parent also. Let's get back to the point - are there any sources claiming her as any sort of journalist? If not, lets move to remove these cats.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Facetious" is an understatement. I recognize that all of this is now within policy, but let's face it : just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that you SHOULD do something. Categorization is as much an art as a science, and this is lousy art. NaymanNoland (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question: I've spent some time on this in the past week (it's infuriating, but also fun) and I've never encountered anyone identifying her as a journalist, much less a columnist. NaymanNoland (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why I hope we can get to WP:Category intersection, and soon. If we had that, she would be in Category:American women, and that's it - no other gendered cats. Check out Category:Singaporean poets for a proof of concept. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so let's give people a few more hours - if no sources come to light indicating she's called a journalist, kill the cats. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• But we have sources that indicate that she published columns in major newspapers, thus she is a columnist, and thus a jorunalist. How is that not the way things work? Also, I have now been proposed for banning for categorization for this edit, which even if I am being over broad it what I call a journalist, seems to be uncalled for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• The word "journalist" implies regular contributions to newspapers, magazines, etc. It's a professional category. The occasional opinion piece does not make you a journalist (or most of the people even slightly notable in America would qualify.) NaymanNoland (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• I have asked for Johnpacklambert to be banned from any category work related to biographies of persons living or dead. Not because of they are being overbroad in their definition of a journalist, but more generally for failing to understand what all the fuss was about and moderating their activities accordingly. Anyone is welcome to comment in the discussion, but it would be nice if it was kept to WP:AN and not here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• The whole thing is largely based on 1-claiming we should not have Category:American women novelists, which should be discussed at a CfD, not by aqttempting to ban one user. 2-the false claim that Filipacchi has been ghetoized. I put her in both the columnists category and the American women journalists category. If she is a columnists, she is a journalist, and should be cateogrized as such. 3-it ignores the fact that wikipedia has been attacked for having more articles on female pornographic film actors than women poets, and this is part of an attempt to rectify other similar possible attack lines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have been convinced, Filipacchi is not a journalist, and have removed her from those categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't get why she was being categorized as a columnist. Getting a few opinion pieces published does not make one a columnist. If she gets a regular gig then that would be another thing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Tangentially, Wikipedia SHOULD have more articles on female porn stars than female poets. A porn star's gender is in fact a crucial bit of information, isn't it. Defining, even. Whereas I couldn't care less whether Emily Dickinson had a luxurious beard. (I agree that we should probably have more poets than porn stars - simply that the respective sub-categories are not really analogous.) NaymanNoland (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Tangentially, if you really believe that, nominate Category:American women poets for deletion. I will show you how to do it if you don't know how. Then, promise to accept the community consensus on same. Otherwise, drop the stick.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

A new rule: If you add categories to this page, you will be dragged before ANI. If you delete categories from this page, you will dragged before ANI. In other words, don't touch the categories on this page - you will be dragged before ANI. A warning for future editors. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'll drop the stick (much as I quite like the stick), but I thought I'd point out one interesting irony: "porn stars" is a category in which it would make sense to have a sub-cat of "male pornstars", but not so much "female porn stars", since that's the gender assumed. (Okay, off to edit stuff about sea cows and the Old Testament...) NaymanNoland (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Offtopic, but that is the case with prostitutes today. I'm trying to change that, and have full split by gender since it is obviously relevant to that particular job, and we shouldn't assume that prostitute=female. This stuff is one cat at a time... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion on categorization - what next?

Categorization efforts have now reached a somewhat uneasy equilibrium - the majority of Category:American novelists have been depopulated into by-century subcats, but a choice few bios remain in the head cat, including this one. Currently, it looks like a who's who of American novelists. Obviously, this situation isn't tenable over the long term, so your input welcome on what to do next here Category_talk:American_novelists#RFC_or_not.3F. I also hope that people watching this page will accept the consensus that results from that discussion, regardless of what columns were written, and that what is done in terms of categorization of other novelists will apply to this bio as well - please join the conversation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have been undergoing a wide-ranging "diffusion" or "depopulation" or whatever the fucking buzzord du jour is, then that was quite obviously a mistake, and not in line with the consensus of the CfD finding a few weeks ago. If a Wikipedia reader (readers as in casual visitors to this site, y'know, those people who we claim are important, the ones coming here not to engage in wiki-arcana but to come find information) visits this page and clicks on an "American novelists" cat at the bottom, they should be given what a common-sense reader would expect to be given; a list...a long list at that...of novelists. Not a list of lists, of sub-lists, of sub-categories to drill down through, click click click. There is nothing wrong with a biographical article appearing in "American novelists" at the same time as "American women novelists". Tarc (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a reasonable POV - just I'd suggest rather than discussing it here (and reverting/adding/reverting/adding here) as has happened in the past, just come over to where the discussion is happening and provide that same input. Cheers. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Concur with Tarc here. There's nothing wrong with a subject being in the parent category as well as any reasonable number of subcats - Alison ^❤ 17:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Then please weigh in - Category_talk:American_novelists#RFC_or_not.3F is where it's all at :) - since this obviously impacts all novelists. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion already took place a few weeks ago, where it came down against you and johnpacklambert and the other cronies. Do you have any notion at all as to how ridiculous you two have made this project look in the eyes of actual writers and media members out there? Tarc (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not been recategorizing thousands of bios, so point your accusations in a different direction. And I don't know what you mean "came down against" - I was never opposed to the idea of non-diffusing cats for gender. Anyway, it's not me who wants an RFC on American novelists, it's others who I think feel more like you - so I really was simply coming here to ask you to join the discussion over there, no matter what your POV is.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, it was I who diffused most of the category, since I didn't want JPL to be scapegoated and potentially driven off the project. In the process I have added by-century categories to every novelist that was in the parent, so if there is later a decision to merge all novelists into a single category, it would be a simple process involving a bot. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Banner tags untidy and unnecessary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are unnecessary banners in this article that give it an untidy appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddievega (talk • contribs) 26 April 2013

• There's only one now, and it's highly necessary that its advice be followed before it is removed. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI tag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone plz explain how Qworty is personally or professionally attached to this bio? having a grudge doesnt count I don't think. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Given Qworty's habit, as identified in the Salon articles and elsewhere, of attacking articles on subjects associated with the main objects of his animus, it's plausible to infer that Filipacchi has received attention from him because her father's company publishes one or more writers against whom he has a more direct animus. It's not profitable to try and untangle his specific chain of thought here, but the problem shouldn't be dismissed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Salon piece makes no such connection, and you are exercising goatse reasoning. Quite a stretch there. This is not even close to plausible and the insistence on keeping this tag is quite WP:POINTY.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, there is zero evidence of any connection between Qworty and Miss Filipacchi.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

plausible to infer??? What is that supposed to mean? "Its not profitable to untangle..." Yeah, lets not sort out facts, lets just make vague suppositions instead!

Qworty clearly has a grudge and laid out his reasons for same in detail on this page and others, and has already been asked to not edit here which I think is reasonable. The tag, OTOH, says quite cleary that the editor has a personal or professional connection with the subject. Qworty had never edited here until categorygate, and it just seems she was the latest victim of his attack-editing. But unless you can provide actual evidence instead of vague supposition and tenuous logic then that particular tag should not be placed. (If we extend your logic, we should tag all family members of all publishing houses just in case Qworty had a beef with any of their authors too). COI fits on Qwortys bio obviously, and any author who he knows and has publicly battled, but he doesnt know Filipacchi as far as we know. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I know this is late, but the COI tag is for use when the editor is the same person as the subject of the biography/article, or, if it's an organization or company, for an employee or other such connected person. It is not for anyone directly or remotely the target of them. Its most common usage is when someone (or their family) edits their own biography, which is always a touchy situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about novelist categories

Greetings! You are invited to take place in a conversation happening Category_talk:American_novelists#Stalemate here about how to move forward with discussion on subcategories of by-country novelist categories.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Template Template:BLP sources still needed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It would appear this template is no longer needed, at least given the level of protection, but perhaps I am mistaken. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please can you reason why you don't consider it needed? Protection is an independent issue. There are some sources that are required but lets avoid big banner tags as there's attention and discussion here already which is the purpose of the tags, and inline use instead may be more effective:

• direct quotes need refs per WP:QUOTE / WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
  • Reviewers{{which}} have called Filipacchi “fearsomely witty,” and “a prodigious postfeminist talent.“{{cn}}
  • The New York Times as a "lovely comic surrealist.”{{cn}}
• BLP unsourced issue liking a source:
  • She has been living in New York since she was 17.{{cn}}

All of this can be fixed now.

• "fearsomely witty" (from a review of Nude Men) is sourced to the Village Voice in the front matter of Love Creeps:.
• "a prodigious postfeminist talent" [Unsigned review http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-7867-0617-4] in Publishers Weekly.
• Bio page at amandafilipacchi.com, acceptable per WP:SELFSOURCE.

--Carwil (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Purely for the record, since you asked, my reasoning was that I did not see any contentious statements needing sourcing (and trusted that semi-protection would guard against any being added) and that any other sourcing issues could be dealt with inline as you noted. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead too short

This could be doubled at least to cover the main topics. Widefox; talk 09:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey what would you guys think of cropping the infobox photo to only show the rightmost face? That way it will look more encyclopedic and less "artsy". — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, but might it cause copyright issues? Sometimes an image comes under the category of fair use, but only if you don't alter it. NaymanNoland (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This one's GFDL-ed and derivative works are allowed with attribution. I'm opposed to altering it, though, just for the record. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you elaborate on reasons for opposing alteration? Thanks! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I just like it the way it is. It's not a big deal to me, though. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Cymru.lass, I support the creation of a new derivative image that only shows the portrait. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I decided to be bold. I added a licensed deriv. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A nice improvement. The original was distracting.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Viriditas! The deriv looks much more encyclopedic. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Don't forget lead links!

I added a couple of links to the broader notability topic(s) per WP:LEAD > WP:CONTEXTLINK & WP:OPENPARA - can't believe given the spotlight that others didn't see this as being important - it's not just cats but links too! Widefox; talk 12:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Quotes

Per WP:QUOTE we should try to summarise quotes unless the quote itself if notable. --John (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:QUOTE also says "quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words". Also, the restored quote was previously outright deleted, not summarized. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Right. So I am proposing we summarise these quotes. Do you want to have a go? --John (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually think this might be a case where it is less controversial to simply keep the two short quotes. I disagree that the section needs tagging for excessive quoting. Maybe there's an issue with interpreting more quotes than there actually are because quotes are being used to denote the categories "American novelists" and "American women novelists".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No, though I know what you mean. Here, I've had a a go. What do you think? --John (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)